— Nicholas Chan and Koay Su Lyn
The Malaysian Insider
May 31, 2013

MAY 31 — A contention exists after the 2008 general election, be it academically or by propaganda, that Malaysia will benefit greatly from a two-party system, a concept constantly thrown around but highly vague in its actual meaning, or at least in the public understanding of it. Hence, after all these years of political shakeup, did we achieve the two-party system? If yes, how far did it go? Are we enjoying the fruits of it or did it come at a cost, like the political gridlock that has been plaguing Washington?

By definition, the most commonly agreed feature of a democratic two-party system is that it is a political environment, dominated by two major political parties with either party winning in almost all the elections held. Although the system does not negate the existence of other splinter parties or independent candidates, it usually thrives in an “either-or” situation whereby the ruling party is just one or the other. The most notable example of a two-party system is the United States, as the Congress is populated by politicians from two major parties while the presidency is always a tussle between a Republican and a Democrat candidate. A two-party system is not an engraved certainty as the United Kingdom, which had witnessed a two-party system between the Labour and the Conservative for decades (except for the case of a hung Parliament in 1974), was struck by an embarrassing situation in its most recent 2010 elections, whereby neither party earned the simple majority to form the government, resulting in a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government.

Malaysia and its traditional single-party monopoly

So, why is such a system much heralded in Malaysia? The most obvious reason is that it offers an option to the people who do not agree with the governance of Barisan Nasional (BN), which has reigned for 56 years and counting. Without a viable opposition to challenge the hegemony of the ruling party, BN has until recently enjoyed the monopoly of power without any serious checks and balances, to the point of being able to bulldoze through big detrimental changes to our Constitution, ala the 1988 judiciary crisis. The absence of a two-party system in Malaysia would mean that the ruling party enjoys absolute power as a two-thirds majority is all it needs to amend the Constitution, with the exception of clauses pertaining to Bumiputera special rights, the monarchy and Islam as the official religion of the country. The fact that Malaysian politicians tend to vote en-bloc as well as a diminutive and oppressed public sphere (back then) add to this convention of power without boundaries for the incumbent.

Post 308: A monopoly broken and the birth of a two-party system

The status quo changed drastically after the March 2008 elections as Pakatan Rakyat (PR) has posed itself as a formidable foe to BN, winning close to 47 per cent of the popular votes. No doubt PR has finally presented itself as a united and viable front in securing the confidence of the voters, it is noteworthy that this political tsunami also coincides with the social media boom, where the Internet became a congregational space for Malaysians to communicate, discuss and educate each other on national matters. Some would say that a two-party system in the country contributed to higher political awareness as well as greater participation in the political/decision making process. But it is more of a synergistic process — as more people demand their voices to be heard, and BN does not represent those voices, they would gladly vow for the alternative. And if the alternative is capable of consolidating such voices or opinions, a two-party system is born.

Today, politics in Malaysia is no longer business as usual. Public discourse and contention is rife and vocal; the media (or at least the alternative media) took Malaysian journalism to a new direction, and politicians are quick to compete for a place on the various platforms buoyed by public voices to gain political clout. With more states by the opposition, a comparison of governing standards is inevitable. Everyone is kept on their toes. The existence of a resurgent opposition ensures that the government is not a mere “talking shop” and promotes a sense of accountability and transparency as the government of the day will be pressured to be transparent in its governance to retain power. As long as a better, more empathetic and accountable governance form the wishes of the rakyat, a two-party system would ensure the continuity of such wishes.

How far did we enjoy the fruits of a two-party system?

There is a joke on how ironic our country is — when we had economic progress in the 1980s, we lacked democratic freedom; now we have a greatly improved democratic freedom, but lack a robust economy. It is certain that economic progress and democratic expansion is not a zero-sum game, but the saying amusingly highlights the kind of democratic freedom we have. Three Bersih rallies with huge crowds have insofar been organised, among the many smaller assemblies held by different political parties, or NGOs.

Public assembly or demonstration is the present norm of the day to the extent that the government has to acknowledge it by enacting the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012, removing the need for police permits for gatherings as laid in section 27 of the Police Act. While these are mere baby steps towards full recognition of freedom to assemble, such steps are nevertheless seen as taking strides in multiple directions. The ISA was repealed and replaced by the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act (SOSMA), the need for an annual printing licence under the Printing Presses and Publications Act was scrapped, the ban of student participation in politics in the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 was lifted among other legislative changes.

While dissent against these legislative constraints existed long ago, it was not until the rise of a two-party system that such unimaginable reforms (why would the government do away something that is beneficial to them?) were implemented. This paradigm shift to end the “government knows best” era happened only at the instance of BN sensing a tangible threat of losing power if they don’t address the voices of the public. This also signals the role of a two-party system compared to one that has a government against multitudes of opposition, be it from the public or politicians, because it is vital for one party/coalition to pose itself as the second-in-line for the incumbent. The message is simple, if you can’t do your job well; there is an alternative ready to take over.

A race exists whereby both parties not only seek to outperform each other, but also to outmatch each other in exposing the other’s scandals and transgressions. Although this would lead to some gutter and vitriol politics, it keeps a proper check on the governments in power. Exposes like the National Feedlot Centre (NFC) scandal by Rafizi Ramli and the Talam scandal in Selangor by the MCA marks the fruits of a system where both parties attempt to catch each other red-handed, thus ensuring that the government runs its daily business in a clean, uncorrupted and dignified manner.

The nation is also geared towards the frequent hosting of political and policy debates/forums aimed at keeping the public informed and engaged with government plans and dealings due to such competitive environment. This inadvertently promotes sufficient awareness and knowledge of the government’s doing and thereby enabling them to keep a more efficient electoral check on the government.

An extra bonus also exists where incumbents are no longer guaranteed a place in the government (be it state or federal) if they did not perform to the levels as expected by the voters. Although expectations vary over constituencies, this newborn uncertainty will foster competition between both parties to grab the best talents to field in the elections, thus effectively ending the “warlord” culture, notoriously entrenched in Umno as well as introducing new ideas, view and policies in the form of new blood/fresh faces to the parties. In the 13th general election, one-third of the BN candidates were new faces. It would seem that the two-party system provided a mechanism for the renewal of candidates, which is good for ideas and the shedding of old bureaucracies.

The drawbacks: A polarised Malaysia?

There is a subtle connotation to a two-party system however, that one would reasonably be worried about. What if the materialisation of a two-party system, in which both parties are ideologically or even demographically dividing, points to a society as polarised and segregated? What if the results of an election, like the one we recently had, point towards a simple majority? (or the lack thereof, subject to the interpretation of the results)

Fortunately, the manifestos of both coalitions in the recent elections are similarly left leaning, investing heavily on populist measures, amidst other reform measures that are more window dressing than paradigm shifting. This indicates that a uniting common ground is still available for the nation; at least according to what the leadership of both coalitions think. However, as the dust settles with the conclusion of the elections, it remains to be seen if any of the parties would drastically take a different course from the other to establish itself with a more distinctive image. The recent pendulum-like swinging of Umno’s stance between the ultra-nationalist right and Najib’s centrist 1 Malaysia points to the tug of war between the factions within the party, as well as the search for the identity the party thinks best for its long term survival.

Unless under unusual circumstances, the manifestation of a two-party system also means for very long we are not going to see a two-thirds majority within our Parliament. This also indicates that although one party presides over the other in the elections, each of these parties/coalitions would actually command a substantial support from the voters no matter who the victor is. As such, the governing party could use this as an excuse to ignore the demands, perceived to be from non-supporters, citing that it has the support of the majority (which if deciphered by seats or popular votes gives a totally different picture after the recent election).

The issue is that it is both subjective and difficult to gauge public opinion on certain issues, typically when there is the possibility of a silent majority. Issues like banning the usage of the word “Allah” by non-Muslims, the amendment of section 114A of the Evidence Act 1950 as well as the arbitrary use of the Sedition Act 1948 despite Najib’s promise to repeal it are examples of reticence showed by the government in the face of a significant opposing voice. Will the current election results lead to a more hostile confrontation between the government and opposition, whereby the check and balance scheme could no longer function effectively as it had evolved into a “either with-me-or-against-me” game, or will it result in a bipartisan co-operative but not a unified government, under which the check and balance culture will work best, remains to be seen.

A two-party system that is supposed to work for the people might work against them too. As compared to a one-party hegemony, such system will witness the intensification of the battle for the hearts and minds of the voter, ultimately leading to populist or rhetorical politics instead of smart politics taking the centre stage in the national discourse of policies and ideas. A people-centric government is no doubt good, but when the pleasing or enticing of votes comes at the expense of the long-term sustainability or development of the nation, such trend endangers a developing nation like ours as government intervention is still paramount in charting the course towards a developed and equitable Malaysia.

Gridlocks are bound to happen when policies introduced are opposed for the sake of raising public sentiment to counter its implementation although it will benefit the nation in the long run. For example, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) is fervently opposed by the opposition, as well as any efforts to revamp and reduce our subsidy dependence. While it can be said that the GST’s viability is still under question, but the serious need for Malaysia to reorganise its revenue base and priority spending must be addressed to propel us away from the middle income trap. A confrontational two-party system might be detrimental in this sense that policies perceived as unpopular will be shackled; also making the effort of abolishing institutionalised racism an uphill battle than it is, as the opposing equivalent to a reformist/socialist/liberal government will be a right wing ultranationalist faction, as can be seen in the situation of many European countries these days.

The myth: A four-party or a two-party system?

That being said, it is certain that Malaysia benefits more from a two-party system rather than one-party authoritarian rule like in the Mahathir days. Power is better shared by two equally formidable forces than concentrated in the hands of one party, or one man. A two-party system in a democratic setting also greatly elevates political awareness and nurtures the flourish of NGOs, laying a solid foundation for the budding of a third force in Malaysia.

The greatest impediment to our two-party system now lies in the trisomy nature of PR. Although the parties claim to espouse a common manifesto, each party has their own struggles grounded on different founding principles and there seems to be a segment of non-overlapping supporters for each party. For example, a DAP supporter might not vote for PAS or vice versa. So, instead of having a two-party system, we might be having a four-party system instead. And if national reconciliation is high on the priority, such divisiveness does not help, not in the current backdrop of racial hate mongering by certain quarters from Umno.

Besides consolidating the system, a united PR is of the utmost importance in battling the deterioration of moderating voices within Umno, because having numbers is important in a two-party system (PR currently stands at 89 seats against Umno’s 88). It is hopeful that one day political maturity of the nation might supersede the imperativeness of having a two-party system, which admittedly has a polarising and a demagoguery effect, and we will see a government that knows its priorities as well as having a good grasp on the pulse of the nation, which often comes in proportional concoctions. But then we don’t have proportional representation in our Parliament, don’t we? We have gone a long way to came to the realisation of a two-party system, but then we still have a long way to go.